Looks like there is a mistake on QLineF documentation page
It seems that i found small mistake on the QLineF class reference "page":http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/qlinef.html:
"The intersect() function determines the IntersectType for this line and a given line, while the angle() function returns the angle between the lines"
It should be angleTo() instead of angle(), because in accordance with documentation:
angle() - Returns the angle of the line in degrees
angleTo(const QLineF & line) - Returns the angle (in positive degrees) from this line to the given line.
Is my understanding correct?
Please correct me if this post should be in another subforum.
Moved to General and Desktop since the online documentation is built from Qt's sources.
Seems you're right
You can open a bug report about it on the "bug report system":http://bugreports.qt.io (check first is someone else noticed) and if you want you can even submit a patch to correct the documentation.
I've created "QTWEBSITE-622":https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTWEBSITE-622.
Thank you very much!
Should i mark this thread as solved?
Once it's solved, however, it's not a website bug, it's in Qt's documentation which is used to generate the online documentation.
I have asked the bugreport to be moved. The new location is "QTBUG-44309":https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-44309
Thanks a lot for your help. Actually i'm a newbie in Qt world and currently it's difficult for me to "orient" in its subprojects and other things =)
Correction in progress
Thanks, SGaist! The Qt 5 patch has been merged, and the Qt 4 patch has been approved.
The Qt 5 correction will become visible when Qt 5.5.0 is released. Hopefully, the Qt 4 correction will make it in time for the Qt 4.8.7 release.
EvgeniyE: I recommend you use the latest documentation, as Qt 4.8 is quite old: http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qlinef.html
If you're using Google Chrome, this "extension":http://qt-project.org/forums/viewthread/36199 makes it easier to search Qt docs.
Thank you, i'll follow your recommendation.
Unless I'm mistaken, it could even be in earlier